[webkit-dev] Announcing WebKit2

[Darin Fisher]

On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:36 PM, Darin Fisher <darin at chromium.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Cameron Zwarich <cwzwarich at webkit.org>wrote:
>
>> On Apr 9, 2010, at 2:34 AM, Jeremy Orlow wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 2:33 AM, Adam Treat <treat at kde.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday 08 April 2010 09:24:32 pm Darin Adler wrote:
>>> > On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:23 PM, Adam Treat wrote:
>>> > > Can someone please point to the bug report and the forum where this
>>> > > development was discussed by the greater WebKit community?
>>> >
>>> > The time for that discussion is now. The forum is here.
>>> >
>>> > I suggest we use this mailing list, not a bug report.
>>>
>>> Isn't that a little cart before the horse?  It is already actively being
>>> landed...
>>>
>>
>> I'd have to agree.  A new port is a maintenance burden on the entire
>> community.  Normally we discuss such things before starting to commit them.
>>
>>
>> We seem to welcome pretty much any port that has an active maintainer.
>>
>> In the past we have accepted the Chromium port despite it having a new JS
>> engine, new DOM bindings, an overreaching catch-all #ifdef for unrelated
>> changes, numerous layering violations, and seemingly unnecessary changes or
>> replacements of platform-independent code. All of these problems were
>> discussed on webkit-dev and in Bugzilla prior to Chromium landing, but they
>> were largely ignored and still exist today.
>>
>>
> Perhaps we should discuss some of these problems that you perceive to still
> exist with the Chromium port at the WebKit conference.  I'd like to
> understand better.
>
> I have heard/read some arguments in favor of breaking PLATFORM(CHROMIUM) up
> into separate defines, and that all sounds conceptually reasonable, but
> there hasn't been much of a need to do so since there have been no other
> ports interested in sharing portions of what is currently behind
> PLATFORM(CHROMIUM).  Perhaps we're at a point now, because of WebKit2, in
> which we would benefit from sharing code that is presently behind
> PLATFORM(CHROMIUM)?
>
> Regards,
> -Darin
>
>
For example, Sam mentioned that WebKit2 might want to use the
BackForwardListClient that we added for the Chromium port.  It seems like a
trivial change to invent an ENABLE option for that so that it can be shared.
 Are there more examples?

-Darin



>
>
>>  For example, my first question is whether we can adapt the Chromium
>> WebKit API (or devise an API that could replace the Chromium WebKit API)
>> since it sounds like our goals and the goals of this new API are fairly
>> similar.  If we do the former, I'm sure we can talk about changing the name.
>>  :-)
>>
>>
>> As it stands, there is no way for a WebKit port to opt in to Chromium's
>> multiprocess model, and making this possible has never been a priority for
>> the Chromium team. WebKit 2 looks a lot cleaner in this respect.
>>
>> Cameron
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> webkit-dev mailing list
>> webkit-dev at lists.webkit.org
>> http://lists.webkit.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/webkit-dev
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.webkit.org/pipermail/webkit-dev/attachments/20100409/70d7c137/attachment.html>